Opinion of the Court by
The judgment of the court below is reversed, because it appears that the undertaking of Everett was only collateral, and as such, came within the statute of frauds and perjuries.
To this opinion of the court, Justice John Reynolds dissents., and delivers the following opinion.
The bill of exceptions in this case presents a state of facts not very satisfactory. It is really difficult to know if Everett be the security of Bailey or the principal in this transaction. But from the best consideration I am capable of bestowing on this case, I conclude that Everett was the person to whom the credit was given, and therefore liable. The witness states expressly that he would not give credit to Bailey, but that the credit was given to Everett, yet in the same deposition he says, Everett was the security of Bailey, and the charge is so made. There being no writing in the case, it was contended that Everett was not" liable, as it was within the statute of frauds *81and perjuries. I am of opinion, according to the whole state of facts as shown, that Everett is liable, (a) (1)
Blackwell, for appellant.
Kane, for appellee.
Judgment reversed.